[akersten]

This is absurd. Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression? Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime? (They didn't do that, for clarity.)

By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?

[burkaman]

This is a fairly narrow decision. The lower court said Snapchat was immune under Section 230 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230), and the appeals court is saying no, the issue here is a feature of Snapchat itself, not user generated content, so Section 230 doesn't apply, and they sent it back to the lower court to try again.

This is the correct decision. If the suit is going to be dismissed, it needs to be dismissed on valid grounds. If there is no valid reason then it must continue towards trial, where it could still fail on the merits.

[GavinMcG]

For the record, encouraging reckless driving is likely a crime wherever reckless driving itself is a crime. I am not a lawyer but encouragement is typically a basis for liability as an accomplice.

Here's Texas, for example:

Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.

(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:

...

(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense;

[gruez]

Well obviously they're not going to say "drive over the posted speed limit on public roads". "too fast too furious" with a "professional driver, closed course" disclaimer at the end should be enough. After all, there's nothing wrong with being fast and furious on a racing track ;)

[dragonwriter]

> Well obviously they're not going to say "drive over the posted speed limit on public roads". "too fast too furious" with a "professional driver, closed course" disclaimer at the end should be enough.

Whether or not such a disclaimer was sufficient evidence that they lacked the intent to encourage the crime (or whether the ass-covering was instead evidence that they knew they were encouraging crime and needed to deflect liability) would be a fact question if they were criminally charged with the crime of encouraging the crime of reckless driving.

OTOH, since they are being charged with a tort (civil wrong) and not that or any other crime, both the fact that such encouragement is a crime and fact questions relevant to Snap’s criminal liability for it are mostly irrelevant.

[sebastialonso]

I feel this is exactly why in America you have to write "content might be hot" is a recipient made evidently and exclusively for hot beverages.

[hollerith]

This is a civil suit, so criminal law is a peripheral issue. In particular, in a civil suit, most defendants found liable (i.e., most defendants who lose) have comitted no crime.

[GavinMcG]

Yeah, but the commenter had asked "Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime?"

[hollerith]

A rhetorical question offered in support of the thesis sentence, "This is absurd," where "this" refers to a civil suit.

I pointed out that whether Snap, Inc, committed a crime has little bearing on whether the civil suit under discussion is absurd.

[wussboy]

Are technology companies immune to all social responsibility? It sounds like you think they might be. But can we not think of a scenario where that would not be true?

For example, if Snapchat makes a filter that detects blood and "counts kills" as you stab people, are they not responsible for any actions that result? It sounds like you might claim "no", because "I could kill someone on my own if I wanted".

[stevewodil]

Not to completely derail your point, but I think if Snapchat added a "confirmed kills" counter it would be a net social positive and would make catching murderers really easy

[etblg]

I think it's downright harmful and abhorrent that they haven't yet. Why doesn't snapchat want to help stop crime??

[dragonwriter]

> Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression?

That’s...debatable, but not the issue raised in this case.

> Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime?

This isn’t a criminal charge, so whether or not the act is a crime is mostly irrelevant.

[mhh__]

The first amendment does not give you the right to say anything, in the sense that you can be prosecuted for convincing someone to commit suicide for example.